Sportbike World banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,373 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,230 Posts
:thumb: Those guys never cease to amaze!:)
 

·
S370HSSV 0773H
Joined
·
7,434 Posts
Surely someone in politics wouldn't flip flop like that....right Mr. Kerry? Perhaps we could dig a little deeper into it to find out Mr. Rumsfeld's well thought out and insightful reasons for what he said at the time.

Just pointing out that it happens on both sides of the fence. If all we're going to look at is the soundbyte coverage that Dad has so pointedly expressed his distaste for, then why do we get that "well thought out reasons for his actions" spiel when we criticize Kerry for his voting record?

Hindsight is an ugly mother for both sides. In defense of both sides though, they make the best decisions they can based on the information they have at the time. It's easy to go back later and criticize them for it.
 

·
S370HSSV 0773H
Joined
·
7,434 Posts
Oh, and just so everyone doesn't think I'm trying to defend Rumsfeld in this particular case, I thought it was a pretty boneheaded move to say that nobody in the administration had ever said anything about an imminent threat. Never say never....:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
I said what?

No matter what your political affiliation, you have to admit...it's nice to see them squirm a bit for for a change...lol just the look on his face when they're reading him that quote...hahaha...priceless
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,373 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Re: I said what?

daved said:
No matter what your political affiliation, you have to admit...it's nice to see them squirm a bit for for a change...lol just the look on his face when they're reading him that quote...hahaha...priceless
That's what I'm saying. It's not that he tried to flip flop on the issue, it's that he lied about the media making it up. Then when they read him the quotes you can see him start to squirm his way out of it. I would have liked to see what went on after that though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
I'm following the Presidential race with great interest from up here in Canada...I wish I knew more about the candidates histories, and the US political machine, but I CAN tell you I'm no fan of GBW...it greatly concerns me that the "leader of the free world" has led his war machine into a foreign land based on (what I am convinced he knew were) blatant lies regarding WMD's. Not to say that SH didn't need some ousting, but the way it was done, w/o UN support certainly leaves the US taxpayer holding the bag for an expensive sortie. Yes, the Iraqi people hated SH, and wished he were gone, but now, they are left with what they feel is a US (read: non-Muslim) occupation, a fate perhaps worse than a murderous dictator.

I think what I'm trying to say is there was no easy answer to this situation, but the Bush administration made it seem that a) they just had to go in and make war upon Iraq to oust SH and, b) that they would go in, oust Saddam, rebuild a few houses and some infrastructure, restore order and hand over the reins to the Iraqi people...I think the average American is smarter than the politicians give them credit for...we all know it isn't that easy.

Let us not forget the ever-present oil argument.

Just my :2cents:

Also, please forgive me if I'm out of line. As a Canadian, I'm not sure I have the right to comment on the US political situation/president. We here in Canada are not without our political problems.
 

·
S370HSSV 0773H
Joined
·
7,434 Posts
daved said:

Also, please forgive me if I'm out of line. As a Canadian, I'm not sure I have the right to comment on the US political situation/president.
I think anyone anywhere is more than entitled to their opinions, and the board is here to share them. :)

daved said:
We here in Canada are not without our political problems.
I've always heard the expression "If it has tits or tires, it'll give you trouble." I think a similar expression could apply to politicians....the majority of them aren't worth blowing up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,230 Posts
spicersh said:
Surely someone in politics wouldn't flip flop like that....right Mr. Kerry? Perhaps we could dig a little deeper into it to find out Mr. Rumsfeld's well thought out and insightful reasons for what he said at the time.
I would agree if this was a broader question like, "Why did you guys have no bid contracts in the 87 billion war funding budget?" There are arguements that could be made to justify that. Sometimes it's the only practical way to do things on the quick. But if you do, you put in controls and audit capability, etc. What is the scope and structure of the contract? Is there anybody watching the store to make sure that only those items that MUST be done expeditiously are included and the rest are left for bidding? That topic could be discussed intelligently for hours and in the course of it, much could be learned. He may make the case for it to reasonable satisfaction or you may discover it's FULL of problems. That scope of a question like that requires in depth review before accurate justification or accusations can be made, unless they refuse to discuss it in depth. Then you're left to your own conclusions as to why. You have to give the opportunity before to judge. Kerry has taken the opportunity to answer his accusers, you're just not likely to have access to that answer on Fox.

spicersh said:
Just pointing out that it happens on both sides of the fence. If all we're going to look at is the soundbyte coverage that Dad has so pointedly expressed his distaste for, then why do we get that "well thought out reasons for his actions" spiel when we criticize Kerry for his voting record?
In the linked case, that wasn't a soundbyte. It was a straightforward question, was very simple, limited scope, and didn't require much discussion, only a straightforward answer because it was so simple. Some items are like that and are one sentence answers. He was asked the straight question and his answer was a lie, proven with his own words. For the life of me, I can't see anything left to discuss, but would be willing to listen. Watch the tape again if you don't see that difference.

In the scenario I outlined above, about no bid contracts, if the question was posed, "Did you have no bid contracts in that budget?" and the reply was, "No", then a very short reply, showing that it was a lie, would end that discussion. The follow up as to "why" could get several hours of discussion started.

As for Kerry, which one do you want to discuss? When charged with voting against the 87 billion budget, Kerry agreed that he did that. No lie. Then, the next logical question is, "Why"? That answer is very revealing. I would pose the same question to Rumsfeld after he lied, "Why"? That answer, too, would be very revealing. I also doubt he will be wanting to discuss that. While there may be several answers, none will be good. It will take an independant investigation to get to the bottom of that one.;)

C'mon Scott, you're arguing for arguement's sake here. I know you're better than that. :thumb: You're trying to pull a "Fox News" on us. :D
 

·
S370HSSV 0773H
Joined
·
7,434 Posts
Dad said:
C'mon Scott, you're arguing for arguement's sake here. I know you're better than that. :thumb: You're trying to pull a "Fox News" on us. :D
Well just in case I was not clear, I already said that in this case I wouldn't try to nor would I want to defend Rumsfeld. He got caught with his own words. The question then is did he intentionally lie about it or did he forget what he said? Could be one or the other, could be a mixture of both. I wouldn't say that he is above lying about it, I'm just saying that the video may not be the whole story. Like I said, if someone asks you if you said something, never say never unless you are damn sure of it. :)

I really wasn't trying to start an argument over this. Just saying that both sides don't always tell the truth. Both sides are full of liars, ya just gotta pick which ones lie in your favor most often. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
860 Posts
i wanted to point out that on the 2nd quote when it said the Iraq was one of the more Imediate threats. That does not nessecarily mean an imeditate threat it means if there was a threat they would be in the front of it being the country with the most probability. For rummsfield to really start squirming it would have had to have said most instead of more.Which in turn means that Iraq compared to the other countries of the world poses more of a threat to us.

its was humorous to see him squirm though
 

·
S370HSSV 0773H
Joined
·
7,434 Posts
AudioSolstice said:
i wanted to point out that on the 2nd quote when it said the Iraq was one of the more Imediate threats. That does not nessecarily mean an imeditate threat it means if there was a threat they would be in the front of it being the country with the most probability. For rummsfield to really start squirming it would have had to have said most instead of more.Which in turn means that Iraq compared to the other countries of the world poses more of a threat to us.

its was humorous to see him squirm though
I thought it was the 2nd one that got him. The first one didn't really prove anything one way or another. I thought about mentioning that, but I'm sure that that would just be reaching. :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,230 Posts
spicersh said:
Well just in case I was not clear, I already said that in this case I wouldn't try to nor would I want to defend Rumsfeld. He got caught with his own words. The question then is did he intentionally lie about it or did he forget what he said? Could be one or the other, could be a mixture of both. I wouldn't say that he is above lying about it, I'm just saying that the video may not be the whole story. Like I said, if someone asks you if you said something, never say never unless you are damn sure of it. :)
With the multitude of speeches and interviews on the topic and the consistant theme of ******* danger (select the word of your choice that means "imminent", don't want to mis-quote, after all), any attempt to deny that charge can be nothing but an attempt at deceit. He can't pretend that wasn't the theme, if not the exact words used. That tells me a lot about their whole program and even discounts any latitude I might have given his integrity when he claimed they didn't lie or at least stretch the truth going in. I start to wonder if any of that crew know how to tell the truth. Maybe that was at the core of Paul O'Neill's falling out of favor. I don't agree with all of his opinions, but don't think he's dishonest. Probably resulted in not being a team player.

That makes me wonder about Powell. I always figured him to be honest and he's certainly proven he can be a loyal team player. Maybe that's the carreer military training showing through. Do what you're told, no questions asked. I just wonder if he's going to split at the seams one of these days. I won't be surprised if he has some interesting things to say down the road, after he gets away from the boiling couldron and has time to digest what he was part of. Maybe it will be too embarrassing to admit.

Maybe what those guys suffer from is an allergic reaction to cameras and microphones, causing uncontrollable inability to tell the truth.;)
Microphonobic Cameratellietis.:D Scott, you might want to put the researchers on that one, cook up a quick pill. It might not be one of the blockbuster volume sellers but they can pay what it takes. They've got the money.;):D During the trials, throw in a couple of the Fox News guys. It might work on editors too, broadening your market.:D

If he TRULY didn't know or couldn't remember that he did that, then he needs mental help, but either way needs to be GONE from any position of power. I saw all I needed to see of him before the war, when he was running around Europe, talking to all of the allies, poking them in the eyes with a stick.;) I said it then in the old "should we go to war" posts.

spicersh said:
I really wasn't trying to start an argument over this. Just saying that both sides don't always tell the truth. Both sides are full of liars, ya just gotta pick which ones lie in your favor most often. :)
I don't know. I'm looking for better than that.:thumb: :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,230 Posts
See if this link jogs any memories about what was said. :(

GW clips
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,490 Posts
That video is priceless. I would agree with Spicersh, but I think that the incumbent administration has been too horrible in hiding facts from the public (just look at their sandbagging even getting the 9-11 investigation off the ground, let alone what is now happening), as well as the lying we all have grown to see from politicians in general. They treat it as too "normal" to let it go without vomiting at them. :barf2:

Deflecting attention elsewhere is a way to avoid responsibility, but it does not illuminate why Rumsfeld was caught with his d*ck in his hand. No, he is not suffering from senile dementia, as far as I know.
 

·
S370HSSV 0773H
Joined
·
7,434 Posts
Dad said:
Maybe what those guys suffer from is an allergic reaction to cameras and microphones, causing uncontrollable inability to tell the truth.;)
Microphonobic Cameratellietis.:D Scott, you might want to put the researchers on that one, cook up a quick pill. It might not be one of the blockbuster volume sellers but they can pay what it takes. They've got the money.;):D During the trials, throw in a couple of the Fox News guys. It might work on editors too, broadening your market.:D
Yeah, we can manufacture it in China and India and sell it back to you at huge profits! What a great idea! Hey, you need a job?

I forgot, when was it that pharma companies were required to give their products away? We've been through this discussion many many times. You just don't accept the facts of it, for which I am sorry but I'm unable to do anything about. To me, it's not even a topic worth discussing anymore. We are a business just like every other business, here to make a living. We lose our asses in other countries because selling there is the right thing to do, and we recoup our losses in the US, plain and simple. I think it's a bullshit system myself, but should be corrected by getting rid of the pricing controls in other countries, so we can lower prices here. The whole importation issue is a Band-Aid over a gunshot wound. Whether or not you accept the safety concerns behind it doesn't matter. They are real. I agree that the majority of them would be fine, but all it takes is one to get through and cause a death and that person's family to sue the pharma company to bring the whole thing tumbling down. To keep that from happening, pharma companies will simply stop supplying Canada with excess drugs. It's not like they have stockpiles of it up there, they take care of their own first. They send us what is left. If there is nothing left, well, we're right back where we started. Also as I mentioned in another thread, prescriptions make up about 10% of the total healthcare costs, but about 50% of the out of pocket expenses. To me, that sounds like the insurance companies raping the consumer more than the pharma companies. Just my opinion though. That being said, I'm pretty much done with this issue, as you seem unwilling to discuss anything other than pharma companies being crooks and will take nothing less than pharma companies giving all their products away. I'm done with it. :)
 

·
S370HSSV 0773H
Joined
·
7,434 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,230 Posts
spicersh said:
Yeah, we can manufacture it in China and India and sell it back to you at huge profits! What a great idea! Hey, you need a job?
Spoken like a true free trader, Wall Street style.:thumb:
Yes, that was sarcastic.;) :D

spicersh said:
I forgot, when was it that pharma companies were required to give their products away? We've been through this discussion many many times. You just don't accept the facts of it, for which I am sorry but I'm unable to do anything about.
I was just taking a smart ass jab, intended in jest, based on our prior discussions. :D

But, since you brought it up;)........ Noone I know of said they should give away anything and I would be the first to defend them to anyone who did say that. The one underlying question that has NEVER been answered with all of the discussions is the justification for a large industry netting a 20% profit when common, entirely acceptable large industry profits are as low as 2%. That in an industry where people's lives are in the balance and many can't afford access. Every time the discusssion starts, it gets sidetracked to research costs, overseas not paying their share, etc, etc. Those may all be issues of merit, I'm sure many are, but.....

The simple question is, is it morally appropriate for those profits to exist in light of the reality of the access problems with real lives in the balance? That question has NEVER been answered. If all of those other issues are givens at face value, no arguement, and they are all addressed tomorrow, and folks are still without service, is the 20% net profit appropriate? If they gave away drugs, as they often do, then that means that the payers are paying the other's cost PLUS the 20% margin, not necessarily willingly or without great hardship, and is that appropriate or fair to them?

We can do it all over again but tore it up pretty good the first go around.;) And I'm still not satisfied that the core question was ever answered, here or in the public debate. Is 20% industry average net profit appropriate or not, in light of the surrounding facts of access? The rest can be dealt with if it's determined there's a problem. If there isn't one, then nothing needs done.

It's also not fair to characterize an opinion that questions exhorbitant profits as an opinion that says the product should be given away. I've seen that style of discussion elsewhere and we both know it's crap. Yes?:) :thumb:
 

·
S370HSSV 0773H
Joined
·
7,434 Posts
Dad said:
I was just taking a smart ass jab, intended in jest, based on our prior discussions.

But, since you brought it up;)........ Noone I know of said they should and I would be the first to defend them to anyone who did say that. The one underlying question that has NEVER been answered with all of the discussions is the justification for a large industry netting a 20% profit when common, entirely acceptable large industry profits are as low as 2%. That in an industry where people's lives are in the balance and many can't afford access. Every time the discusssion starts, it gets sidetracked to research costs, overseas not paying their share, etc, etc. Those may all be issues of merit, I'm sure many are, but.....

The simple question is, is it morally appropriate for those profits to exist in light of the reality of the access problems with real lives in the balance? That question has NEVER been answered. If all of those other issues are givens at face value, no arguement, and they are all addressed tomorrow, and folks are still without service, is the 20% net profit appropriate? If they gave away drugs, as they often do, then that means that the payers are paying the other's cost PLUS the 20% margin, not necessarily willingly or without great hardship, and is that appropriate or fair to them?

We can do it all over again but tore it up pretty good the first go around.;) And I'm still not satisfied that the core question was ever answered. Is 20% industry average net profit appropriate or not, in light of the surrounding facts of access? The rest can be dealt with if it's determined there's a problem. If there isn't one, then nothing needs done.
One or two of the jabs usually are taken in jest, however when I see them as often as you put them out there I start to take them more as barbed comments and even attacks with a very thin mask of a joke. Putting smilies next to it doesn't hide an attack for what it really is, IMO. If I've misread you then I apologize, as sarcasm/joking generally doesn't come across well over a keyboard.

If you want to take another stab at the issue we can start another thread. I would really rather not as I don't think we'll get any further than we already have, but who knows, I'm game. :)

Now, let's get this thread back on topic of how good Rumsfeld is in public speaking forums. :):thumb:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,230 Posts
Sorry if it was taken that way.:( Surely not the intent. Just trying to make my point and respond as I saw it.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top